In syntax, the trend nowadays is towards lexicalized grammar formalisms. It is now widely accepted that dividing words into wordclasses may serve as a laborsaving mechanism - but at the same time, it discards all detailed information on the idiosyncratic behavior of words. And that is exactly the type of information that may be necessary in order to parse a sentence. For learning approaches, however, lexicalized grammars represent a challenge for the very reason that they include so much detailed and specific information, which is difficult to learn. This paper will present an algorithm for learning a link grammar of German. The problem of data sparseness is tackled by using all the available information from partial parses as well as from an existing grammar fragment and a tagger. This is a report about work in progress so there are no representative results available yet.

This paper presents a comparative study of probabilistic treebank parsing of German, using the Negra and TüBa-D/Z treebanks. Experiments with the Stanford parser, which uses a factored PCFG and dependency model, show that, contrary to previous claims for other parsers, lexicalization of PCFG models boosts parsing performance for both treebanks. The experiments also show that there is a big difference in parsing performance, when trained on the Negra and on the TüBa-D/Z treebanks. Parser performance for the models trained on TüBa-D/Z are comparable to parsing results for English with the Stanford parser, when trained on the Penn treebank. This comparison at least suggests that German is not harder to parse than its West-Germanic neighbor language English.

Recent years have seen an increasing interest in developing standards for linguistic annotation, with a focus on the interoperability of the resources. This effort, however, requires a profound knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of linguistic annotation schemes in order to avoid importing the flaws and weaknesses of existing encoding schemes into the new standards. This paper addresses the question how to compare syntactically annotated corpora and gain insights into the usefulness of specific design decisions. We present an exhaustive evaluation of two German treebanks with crucially different encoding schemes. We evaluate three different parsers trained on the two treebanks and compare results using EVALB, the Leaf-Ancestor metric, and a dependency-based evaluation. Furthermore, we present TePaCoC, a new testsuite for the evaluation of parsers on complex German grammatical constructions. The testsuite provides a well thought-out error classification, which enables us to compare parser output for parsers trained on treebanks with different encoding schemes and provides interesting insights into the impact of treebank annotation schemes on specific constructions like PP attachment or non-constituent coordination.

In the last decade, the Penn treebank has become the standard data set for evaluating parsers. The fact that most parsers are solely evaluated on this specific data set leaves the question unanswered how much these results depend on the annotation scheme of the treebank. In this paper, we will investigate the influence which different decisions in the annotation schemes of treebanks have on parsing. The investigation uses the comparison of similar treebanks of German, NEGRA and TüBa-D/Z, which are subsequently modified to allow a comparison of the differences. The results show that deleted unary nodes and a flat phrase structure have a negative influence on parsing quality while a flat clause structure has a positive influence.

Transforming constituent-based annotation into dependency-based annotation has been shown to work for different treebanks and annotation schemes (e.g. Lin (1995) has transformed the Penn treebank, and Kübler and Telljohann (2002) the Tübinger Baumbank des Deutschen (TüBa-D/Z)). These ventures are usually triggered by the conflict between theory-neutral annotation, that targets most needs of a wider audience, and theory-specific annotation, that provides more fine-grained information for a smaller audience. As a compromise, it has been pointed out that treebanks can be designed to support more than one theory from the start (Nivre, 2003). We argue that information can also be added to an existing annotation scheme so that it supports additional theory-specific annotations. We also argue that such a transformation is useful for improving and extending the original annotation scheme with respect to both ambiguous annotation and annotation errors. We show this by analysing problems that arise when generating dependency information from the constituent-based TüBa-D/Z.

Chunk parsing has focused on the recognition of partial constituent structures at the level of individual chunks. Little attention has been paid to the question of how such partial analyses can be combined into larger structures for complete utterances. Such larger structures are not only desirable for a deeper syntactic analysis. They also constitute a necessary prerequisite for assigning function-argument structure. The present paper offers a similaritybased algorithm for assigning functional labels such as subject, object, head, complement, etc. to complete syntactic structures on the basis of prechunked input. The evaluation of the algorithm has concentrated on measuring the quality of functional labels. It was performed on a German and an English treebank using two different annotation schemes at the level of function argument structure. The results of 89.73% correct functional labels for German and 90.40%for English validate the general approach.

In this paper, we investigate the role of sub-optimality in training data for part-of-speech tagging. In particular, we examine to what extent the size of the training corpus and certain types of errors in it affect the performance of the tagger. We distinguish four types of errors: If a word is assigned a wrong tag, this tag can belong to the ambiguity class of the word (i.e. to the set of possible tags for that word) or not; furthermore, the major syntactic category (e.g. "N" or "V") can be correctly assigned (e.g. if a finite verb is classified as an infinitive) or not (e.g. if a verb is classified as a noun). We empirically explore the decrease of performance that each of these error types causes for different sizes of the training set. Our results show that those types of errors that are easier to eliminate have a particularly negative effect on the performance. Thus, it is worthwhile concentrating on the elimination of these types of errors, especially if the training corpus is large.